Friday, January 20, 2012

North, to Alaska! Select Alaska Airlines travelers at soon-to-be announced airports may be able to experience expedited screening as part of the TSA Pre✓™ pilot. So get your mukluks ready and keep an eye out here on the blog or @TSA / @TSABlogTeam for future info.

Also, TSA Pre✓™ operations started on Tuesday of this week at LAX for American Airline passengers.

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in ourOff Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog postarchives orsearch our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by usingTalk to TSA.

16 comments:

What TSA does now is so overboard that its ridiculous and results in confiscation of harmless cupcakes while screeners miss C-4 and handguns not to mention the utter contempt that America has for TSA and its employees.

Who gets to determine what “reasonable” is RB? You? Me? George the baker down the street? Or maybe educated professionals in the field of physical security? Who would you rather make the determination of what “reasonable” is?

"Who gets to determine what “reasonable” is RB? You? Me? George the baker down the street? Or maybe educated professionals in the field of physical security? Who would you rather make the determination of what “reasonable” is? "

I'd select educated professionals in the field of security. Thus far, however, it's the TSA that is determining the standard and it has almost completely missed the mark; poor training, poor education, little accountability and no stanardization are not the characteristics of effective security. On the other hand, the TSA does employ tens of thousands and has a multi-billion dollar budget. I suspect those things are more important than effective security.

"Let me guess. You, right?"

I suspect the original poster believes that as an American with "inalienable rights" that he/she does, in fact, have a right to weigh in on this matter. Does that threaten you?

"Who gets to determine what “reasonable” is RB? You? Me? George the baker down the street? Or maybe educated professionals in the field of physical security? "

Clearly, it shouldn't be the TSA; the conflict-of-interest is obvious and the TSA's track record is poor (to say the least). How about a group of military and civilian experts with security and anti-terrorism expertise?

In a relatively short period of time - say 24 months - we could have effective, efficient security in place.

I guarantee you that the system resulting from this process would not result in senior citizens being strip searched, young women with gun-shaped jewelry being inconvenienced or cupcakes being confiscated.

"How about a group of military and civilian experts with security and anti-terrorism expertise?"

That is in fact what the TSA is made up of...All you have to do is check the career experience of most TSA employees. The bottom line is "reasonable" is best determined by the expert collective, plus experience and trends. Both kids and the elderly have been used in different situations (with and without their consent) to carry out the senseless deeds of others. Why wait until it happens here to "whine" about it? The alternative - getting slammed into a building at 500mph - is less desirable and reasonably so!

Anonymous said... "How about a group of military and civilian experts with security and anti-terrorism expertise?"

That is in fact what the TSA is made up of...All you have to do is check the career experience of most TSA employees. The bottom line is "reasonable" is best determined by the expert collective, plus experience and trends. Both kids and the elderly have been used in different situations (with and without their consent) to carry out the senseless deeds of others. Why wait until it happens here to "whine" about it? The alternative - getting slammed into a building at 500mph - is less desirable and reasonably so!

January 23, 2012 9:44 AM............

Curious but how do you think someone is going to slam an airplane into a building since access to the flight deck is controlled with a locked and reinforced door? Guess they pilots could do it and since TSA doesn't screen them or other airport workers like passengers are they actually have the best chance of doing an act like that.

Question for you Anon,, why should government provide security for a private business?

If government's role is to provide security for private business then why not all private business?

Who gets to determine what “reasonable” is RB? You? Me? George the baker down the street? Or maybe educated professionals in the field of physical security? Who would you rather make the determination of what “reasonable” is?

Let me guess. You, right?

January 21, 2012 1:44 PM

..............I think the citizens of the country should have a say in how invasive TSA screening should be and it is pretty clear that the public is not on TSA's side in this matter.

"That is in fact what the TSA is made up of...All you have to do is check the career experience of most TSA employees."

I'm quite familiar with the staff at TSA. Suffice it to say that it is extremely lacking in expertise. At the inception of the TSA, quite a number of credible experts were involved however most, if not all, have left due to the bureaucratic maze and managerial bungling.

"The bottom line is "reasonable" is best determined by the expert collective, plus experience and trends."

Yet security experts by the dozen indicate that what the TSA does is largely ineffective. The TSA has shown again and again that it cannot evaluate itself.

"Why wait until it happens here to "whine" about it? The alternative - getting slammed into a building at 500mph - is less desirable and reasonably so!"

In a dive, the aircraft would be going quite a bit faster than 500 mi/hr, but I'll let that go. The point is, and one of the most frequent criticisms of the TSA is, that it's not addressing the threat. There is vanishingly little chance that a hijacker will ever gain control of an aircraft. The FAA training that resulted in aircrews allowing hijackers access to the cockpit has been changed and flight crews will not allow that to happen.

The leading threat now is explosives. Mechanics and baggage handlers are in the best position to place a device on an aircraft in a location that would do that most damage. Yet, baggage handlers and mechanics are not searched every time they enter the SIDA and likely won't be until one or the other succeeds in placing such a device.

Finally, those who disagree with your incomplete understanding of security are not whining. We're attempting to educate you on the true nature of the threat and the value, or lack thereof, of TSA procedures.

Anonymous said..."The leading threat now is explosives. Mechanics and baggage handlers are in the best position to place a device on an aircraft in a location that would do that most damage. Yet, baggage handlers and mechanics are not searched every time they enter the SIDA and likely won't be until one or the other succeeds in placing such a device."

Screening airport workers would be pretty useless even if they did it. Unlike a passenger, they don't need to bring in an explosive all at once. They could bring it in a little at a time and accumulate it.

You think finding a pound of explosive is hard, try finding an ounce. The TSA is helpless to stop it.

Anonymous said..."How about a group of military and civilian experts with security and anti-terrorism expertise?"

That is in fact what the TSA is made up of...All you have to do is check the career experience of most TSA employees.

The TSA hires from ads on pizza boxes and gas pumps. (http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=97&sid=2000678) I somehow doubt that "military and civilian experts with security and anti-terrorism expertise" are getting hired off a double-pepperoni with extra cheese, or Premium Unleaded.

"Screening airport workers would be pretty useless even if they did it. Unlike a passenger, they don't need to bring in an explosive all at once. They could bring it in a little at a time and accumulate it."

Yet the TSA continues to hassle the traveling public and neglects to address the threat represented by people who pass though security 100+ times/year.

Happily I suspect TSA reform is now on the fast track. You don't illegally detain a sitting Senator with repercussions.

"You think finding a pound of explosive is hard, try finding an ounce. The TSA is helpless to stop it."

Finding explosives is not particularly difficult compared to, for instance, drugs. Unfortunately, finding explosives means targeting limited resources on high-risk vectors. Senators and senior citizens with back braces are not likely vectors, despite the TSO-lore that is passed around.

For laughs, get someone to discuss why the TSA does not make use of the best detection mechanism for explosives - dogs. Early in the existence of the TSA, it was determined that the TSA workforce lacks the skills to handle highly trained dogs, at least in the numbers needed.

I have been enrolled in the TSA Pre program from day one. First, let me say that, in theory, the program is terrific. I was fortunate enough to have a flight that left from gate C30 at DFW airport on the first day of the program. I was directed towards the "special lane" and absolutely loved the expedited experience.

So, I was very excited the next time I had a flight leave from the same area. Unfortunately, I wasn't "selected" to take advantage of the program this time. And ever since, I am Executive Platinum so I travel frequently, it has been very hit or miss. I must tell you, that ultimately, the program is far more frustrating than it is rewarding. Especially when I go out of my way to use C30 to save time and don't get selected. It turns out to be MORE time consuming and very discouraging.

If this program is supposed to be a "benefit" to frequent travelers, then why make it random. Either one should be in the program or not. Random selection after being cleared to be in the program greatly diminishes the value of the program. Please consider changing the "random selection" policy so that we frequent travelers may fully enjoy the benefits of this potentially-excellent program.